Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #74654 > unrolled thread

What's the purpose of CAlive?

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c

Contents

  What's the purpose of CAlive? Chad <cdalten@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 08:05 -0800
    Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-11-02 16:08 +0000
      Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? Jay Braun <lyngwyst@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 08:18 -0800
        Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 09:00 -0800
    Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 08:50 -0800
      Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2015-11-05 14:36 +0100
        Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-11-05 05:55 -0800
          Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2015-11-06 11:57 +0100
            Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-11-06 11:20 +0000
              Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-11-06 11:45 +0000
                Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-11-06 12:03 +0000
                  Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-11-06 13:34 +0000
                    Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-11-06 14:35 +0000
              Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2015-11-06 15:43 +0100
                Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-11-06 07:05 -0800
                Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-11-06 15:15 +0000
                Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-11-06 08:34 -0800
              Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-11-07 00:24 -0800
        Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2015-11-05 21:33 -0700
          Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2015-11-06 11:54 +0100
            Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-11-06 12:01 +0000
            Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-11-06 14:11 +0100
            Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-11-10 16:17 +0000
            Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-11-10 08:24 -0800
        Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2015-11-17 14:51 -0800
          Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-11-18 01:18 +0000
            Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? Chad <cdalten@gmail.com> - 2015-11-17 21:06 -0800
              Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-11-18 02:34 -0800
                Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? mark.bluemel@gmail.com - 2015-11-18 03:36 -0800
                  Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-11-18 04:02 -0800
                  Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-11-18 06:14 -0800
                    Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-11-18 06:18 -0800
              Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2015-11-18 19:07 +0000
                Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-11-18 11:14 -0800
            Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2015-11-19 11:27 -0800
      Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? August Karlstrom <fusionfile@gmail.com> - 2015-11-05 21:57 +0100
        Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-11-05 13:06 -0800
          Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-11-05 22:12 +0100
            Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-11-05 13:24 -0800
              Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-11-05 13:27 -0800
              Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-11-06 13:51 +0100
            Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-11-05 13:25 -0800
              Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-11-06 14:00 +0100
                Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-11-06 05:14 -0800
                  Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-11-06 13:33 +0000
                Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-11-06 14:14 +0000
                  Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-11-06 06:28 -0800
                  Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-11-06 06:52 -0800
                Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-11-06 08:45 -0800
            Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-11-05 15:43 -0800
              Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? Chad <cdalten@gmail.com> - 2015-11-05 15:59 -0800
                Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-11-05 16:11 -0800
                  Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-11-05 16:35 -0800
              Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-11-05 16:12 -0800
                Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-11-05 20:28 -0800
                  Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-11-05 20:40 -0800
                    Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-11-05 21:02 -0800
                      Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-11-05 21:53 -0800
                        Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? Chad <cdalten@gmail.com> - 2015-11-05 23:43 -0800
                          Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-11-06 03:27 -0800
                    Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-07 10:51 +1300
                      Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-11-06 14:04 -0800
                      Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2015-11-07 13:33 -0800
                        Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-11-07 14:00 -0800
                          Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-08 11:26 +1300
                            Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-11-07 14:33 -0800
                            Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-11-07 14:45 -0800
                              Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-11-07 14:58 -0800
                              [way OT] Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-08 14:05 +1300
                                Re: [way OT] Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-11-08 00:05 -0800
                                  Re: [way OT] Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-08 21:44 +1300
                                    Re: [way OT] Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-11-10 16:22 +0000
                                  Re: [way OT] Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-08 07:06 -0600
                                    Re: [way OT] Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-11-08 06:02 -0800
                                    Re: [way OT] Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-11-08 07:45 -0800
                                      Re: [way OT] Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-11-08 09:40 -0800
                                        Re: [way OT] Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-11-08 11:32 -0800
                                          Re: [way OT] Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-11-08 11:43 -0800
                                            Re: [way OT] Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-11-08 21:14 +0100
                            Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-11-07 15:07 -0800
                              Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-11-07 15:14 -0800
                                Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-11-10 16:27 +0000
                                  Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-11-10 08:35 -0800
                                  Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-11-10 09:05 -0800
                              Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-11-07 23:18 +0000
                            Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-11-10 16:20 +0000
                              Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-11-10 08:28 -0800
                        Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-11-07 23:20 +0000
                          Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-11-07 15:41 -0800
                            Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2015-11-07 16:13 -0800
                              Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-11-07 16:20 -0800
                              Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-11-07 16:27 -0800
                                Bartenders? (Was: What's the purpose of CAlive?) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-11-08 01:25 +0000
                                  Re: Bartenders? (Was: What's the purpose of CAlive?) "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-11-07 17:54 -0800
                          Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-11-07 16:01 -0800
                            Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-11-07 16:05 -0800
                          Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2015-11-07 16:08 -0800
                        Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2015-11-08 09:59 +0800
                  Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-11-06 10:50 +0000
                    Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-11-06 10:54 +0000
                      Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-11-07 00:37 -0800
                        Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-11-07 10:00 +0000
          Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? bartekltg <bartekltg@gmail.com> - 2015-11-06 15:01 +0100
            Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-06 08:12 -0600
              Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? bartekltg <bartekltg@gmail.com> - 2015-11-06 19:29 +0100
              Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? August Karlstrom <fusionfile@gmail.com> - 2015-11-07 09:33 +0100
                Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-11-07 01:47 -0800
            Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-11-06 06:20 -0800
            Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-11-06 16:24 +0000
              Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? bartekltg <bartekltg@gmail.com> - 2015-11-06 19:41 +0100
                Re: What's the purpose of CAlive? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-11-10 16:31 +0000

Page 1 of 6  [1] 2 3 4 5 6  Next page →

#74654 — What's the purpose of CAlive?

Is it supposed to fix the shortcomings in C?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#74655

On 02/11/15 16:05, Chad wrote:
> Is it supposed to fix the shortcomings in C?

Could you *please* ask this in a newsgroup where CAlive is topical? This 
is not that newsgroup.

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#74660

> Could you *please* ask this in a newsgroup where CAlive is topical? This 
> is not that newsgroup.
> 

Heh-heh, I get your point.  But since so much bandwidth of this unmoderated newsgroup seems to have been recently devoted to CAlive, perhaps the author of CAlive can briefly tell us what problems he is trying to solve.  I'm looking for 50 words or less.

Jay

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#74665

On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 11:18:19 AM UTC-5, Jay Braun wrote:
> > Could you *please* ask this in a newsgroup where CAlive is topical? This 
> > is not that newsgroup.
> > 
> 
> Heh-heh, I get your point.  But since so much bandwidth of this unmoderated newsgroup seems to have been recently devoted to CAlive, perhaps the author of CAlive can briefly tell us what problems he is trying to solve.  I'm looking for 50 words or less.
> 
> Jay

I'm looking into creating a comp.lang.calive group... but the process is
non-trivial.  In addition, there must be people interested in it before
the group will be approved.  Apart from interest in bashing it, I don't
see too much interest in it yet, so it's likely to be something which
comes to fruition anytime soon.

Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#74663

On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 11:06:12 AM UTC-5, Chad wrote:
> Is it supposed to fix the shortcomings in C?

CAlive is my C-like language offering unto Jesus Christ, part of my vision
for the Liberty Software Foundation, and Village Freedom Project.  It aims
to be a largely C-compatible language, but with some of the new features
the Lord has given me insight to, and one built atop faith in Jesus Christ.

    http://www.visual-freepro.org/wiki/index.php/Liberty_Software_Foundation
    http://www.visual-freepro.org/wiki/index.php/Village_Freedom_Project

In a paragraph:

    I want to create a full hardware and software stack to give to
    people, one with its roots and foundations built entirely upon
    a love offering of the skills and talents we (devout Christian
    believers) were first given by the Lord, so as to be an offering
    unto Him, and unto mankind, and not one given over to money,
    power (control), fame, or other "worldly" attributes.

Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#74964

On 02.11.2015 17:50, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:

> It aims
> to be a largely C-compatible language, but with some of the new features
> the Lord has given me insight to, and one built atop faith in Jesus Christ.

I first thought this was an - admittedly, pretty funny - fake-post/troll.

Then I checked headers. It appears to be genuine.

I cannot express how shocked I am to find this level of delusion and
crackpotness in a computer subgroup.

Cheers,
Johannes

-- 
>> Wo hattest Du das Beben nochmal GENAU vorhergesagt?
> Zumindest nicht öffentlich!
Ah, der neueste und bis heute genialste Streich unsere großen
Kosmologen: Die Geheim-Vorhersage.
 - Karl Kaos über Rüdiger Thomas in dsa <hidbv3$om2$1@speranza.aioe.org>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#74968

On Thursday, November 5, 2015 at 8:36:48 AM UTC-5, Johannes Bauer wrote:
> On 02.11.2015 17:50, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> 
> > It aims
> > to be a largely C-compatible language, but with some of the new features
> > the Lord has given me insight to, and one built atop faith in Jesus Christ.
> 
> I first thought this was an - admittedly, pretty funny - fake-post/troll.
> 
> Then I checked headers. It appears to be genuine.
> 
> I cannot express how shocked I am to find this level of delusion and
> crackpotness in a computer subgroup.

Perhaps the delusion/crackpotness is in the idea that there is not
a God, and that Jesus Christ did not come down to save us from sin.
Do you have sin in your life with regards to Biblical standards?
Ever had sex outside of marriage?  Ever told a lie?  Ever stolen
anything?  If married, ever even looked after another person with
lust in your heart even if you didn't act?

Jesus Christ came to set men free from the death sentence of sin.
He does this by taking our sin away from us when we come to Him and
ask Him to forgive us.  He transferred that sin from us to Him at
the cross, so that when He died, our sin died with Him.

The reason why many people cannot understand how this can be real
comes from the fact that there are two natures at work:  (1) carnal,
and (2) spiritual.  The carnal nature is our flesh, our reasoning
mind.  The spiritual nature is something that's not easily described
to someone who is not born again, but it exists as a new set of
"eyes," a new ability to understand things, all of which leads a
person toward a closer walk with the Lord, and the ways of His
Kingdom, an ongoing process called sanctification.

In any event ... there is a spirit at work in this world which leads
men falsely.  That spirit is the enemy, trying to condemn men's
eternal souls through sin, and through believing lies rather than
believing the truth.  And there is the spirit of the Living God at
work in this world, reaching out to men with the truth.  And all who
will hear the truth, and seek the truth honestly, will hear His call
upon their life, will come to His Son, Jesus Christ, will ask for
forgiveness, and will receive forgiveness and be saved.

-----
It is the enemy spirit which operates in delusion and lies.  That
enemy seeks to destroy your soul in Hell.  Jesus came to set you
free from that end.  And His offer is extended to all people
world-wide no matter of status, stature, age, or race.  All people
are called.  You need only respond to receive Him, and eternal life.

Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#75064

On 05.11.2015 14:55, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:

> Perhaps the delusion/crackpotness is in the idea that there is not
> a God, and that Jesus Christ did not come down to save us from sin.

Actually, the REAL crackpotness is not believing in Russel's teapot.
Which OBVIOUSLY is there, if you just cared to look at all the signs.

> Do you have sin in your life with regards to Biblical standards?

Nope!

> Ever had sex outside of marriage?  

Never!

> Ever told a lie?

Never ever, I swear to god!

>  Ever stolen
> anything?

No, that would be totally wrong!

> If married, ever even looked after another person with
> lust in your heart even if you didn't act?

How could I! Of course not.

So seems to me that I'm safe even according to your arbitrary rules.
Good for me! I hope you obey MY set of arbitrary rules, though. Because
if not -- oh my god. Don't even want to think about it.

Cheers,
Johannes

-- 
>> Wo hattest Du das Beben nochmal GENAU vorhergesagt?
> Zumindest nicht öffentlich!
Ah, der neueste und bis heute genialste Streich unsere großen
Kosmologen: Die Geheim-Vorhersage.
 - Karl Kaos über Rüdiger Thomas in dsa <hidbv3$om2$1@speranza.aioe.org>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#75070

On 06/11/15 10:57, Johannes Bauer wrote:
> On 05.11.2015 14:55, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>
>> Perhaps the delusion/crackpotness is in the idea that there is not
>> a God, and that Jesus Christ did not come down to save us from sin.
>
> Actually, the REAL crackpotness is not believing in Russel's teapot.
> Which OBVIOUSLY is there, if you just cared to look at all the signs.

Frankly, if you want to believe in Russell's Teapot, that's your 
business, not mine. I'm not going to mock you for it (how could I? You 
might be right, after all). But I *am* going to ask that you move any 
discussions thereof to a newsgroup where Russell's Teapot is topical. I 
would also ask that you move any discussions of RCH's religious views to 
a newsgroup where discussion of such beliefs is topical.

I will resist the temptation to comment on the views themselves. You 
have your opinion of them, I have mine, and RCH has his. None of those 
opinions is topical here. If someone wants to kick off a discussion of 
the subject in a newsgroup where it's topical and, perhaps, drop a note 
in here to the effect that they have done so, then anyone who wants to 
can go and argue the toss without clogging up a technical newsgroup with 
endless non-technical discussions.

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#75081

Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:

> On 06/11/15 10:57, Johannes Bauer wrote:
>> On 05.11.2015 14:55, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>>
>>> Perhaps the delusion/crackpotness is in the idea that there is not
>>> a God, and that Jesus Christ did not come down to save us from sin.
>>
>> Actually, the REAL crackpotness is not believing in Russel's teapot.
>> Which OBVIOUSLY is there, if you just cared to look at all the signs.
>
> Frankly, if you want to believe in Russell's Teapot, that's your
> business, not mine. I'm not going to mock you for it (how could I? You
> might be right, after all). But I *am* going to ask that you move any
> discussions thereof to a newsgroup where Russell's Teapot is
> topical. I would also ask that you move any discussions of RCH's
> religious views to a newsgroup where discussion of such beliefs is
> topical.

But only after you've had a chance to comment?  You do seem keen to get
a comment in.

> I will resist the temptation to comment on the views themselves.

You just did.  If your first two sentences are not a comment on Johannes
Bauer's views, we must have very different view of what constitutes a
comment.

<snip>
-- 
Ben.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#75084

On 06/11/15 11:45, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
>
>> On 06/11/15 10:57, Johannes Bauer wrote:
>>> On 05.11.2015 14:55, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>>>
>>>> Perhaps the delusion/crackpotness is in the idea that there is not
>>>> a God, and that Jesus Christ did not come down to save us from sin.
>>>
>>> Actually, the REAL crackpotness is not believing in Russel's teapot.
>>> Which OBVIOUSLY is there, if you just cared to look at all the signs.
>>
>> Frankly, if you want to believe in Russell's Teapot, that's your
>> business, not mine. I'm not going to mock you for it (how could I? You
>> might be right, after all). But I *am* going to ask that you move any
>> discussions thereof to a newsgroup where Russell's Teapot is
>> topical. I would also ask that you move any discussions of RCH's
>> religious views to a newsgroup where discussion of such beliefs is
>> topical.
>
> But only after you've had a chance to comment?  You do seem keen to get
> a comment in.

<shrug> It's an appeal to people to honour the topicality of this 
newsgroup, which is indeed something I'm keen on, yes.

>> I will resist the temptation to comment on the views themselves.
>
> You just did.  If your first two sentences are not a comment on Johannes
> Bauer's views, we must have very different view of what constitutes a
> comment.

Well, I hope you will at least agree that those sentences were neutral 
in tone - neither for nor against.

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#75094

Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:

> On 06/11/15 11:45, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
>>
>>> On 06/11/15 10:57, Johannes Bauer wrote:
>>>> On 05.11.2015 14:55, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps the delusion/crackpotness is in the idea that there is not
>>>>> a God, and that Jesus Christ did not come down to save us from sin.
>>>>
>>>> Actually, the REAL crackpotness is not believing in Russel's teapot.
>>>> Which OBVIOUSLY is there, if you just cared to look at all the signs.
>>>
>>> Frankly, if you want to believe in Russell's Teapot, that's your
>>> business, not mine. I'm not going to mock you for it (how could I? You
>>> might be right, after all). But I *am* going to ask that you move any
>>> discussions thereof to a newsgroup where Russell's Teapot is
>>> topical. I would also ask that you move any discussions of RCH's
>>> religious views to a newsgroup where discussion of such beliefs is
>>> topical.
>>
>> But only after you've had a chance to comment?  You do seem keen to get
>> a comment in.
>
> <shrug> It's an appeal to people to honour the topicality of this
> newsgroup, which is indeed something I'm keen on, yes.

  "Frankly, if you want to believe in Russell's Teapot, that's your
  business, not mine. I'm not going to mock you for it (how could I? You
  might be right, after all)"

is not an appeal to honour the topicality of this newsgroup.

>>> I will resist the temptation to comment on the views themselves.
>>
>> You just did.  If your first two sentences are not a comment on Johannes
>> Bauer's views, we must have very different view of what constitutes a
>> comment.
>
> Well, I hope you will at least agree that those sentences were neutral
> in tone - neither for nor against.

If I answered that, you'd have dragged me into the discussion!  The best
option is not to comment on these posts, ut if you want to post a "take
it elsewhere" post, then it's best to say nothing else.

-- 
Ben.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#75103

On 06/11/15 13:34, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
>
<snip>

>> <shrug> It's an appeal to people to honour the topicality of this
>> newsgroup, which is indeed something I'm keen on, yes.
>
>    "Frankly,[...] all)"
>
> is not an appeal to honour the topicality of this newsgroup.

Oh, I see. Yes, that was by way of an introduction (I am amongst the 
wordiest of fellows), but I do see your point now. Thanks for clarifying.

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#75104

On 06.11.2015 12:20, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> Actually, the REAL crackpotness is not believing in Russel's teapot.
>> Which OBVIOUSLY is there, if you just cared to look at all the signs.
> 
> Frankly, if you want to believe in Russell's Teapot, that's your
> business, not mine.

It will be because you'll burn in teapot-hell if you don't. I'm trying
to save you.

> I
> would also ask that you move any discussions of RCH's religious views to
> a newsgroup where discussion of such beliefs is topical.
[...]
> I will resist the temptation to comment on the views themselves. 

Frankly, if someone publicly proposes that code of a third party cannot
be used because they're not of a specific religion then this consitutes
hate speech. It's an absurd level of delusion and extremism that goes
well beyond "oh you don't belive it, that's your business and okay".

It's not sufficient to ignore such blatant hatred. Even though I'l well
aware that it's not topical here. This is *exactly* the place where
tolerance against completely intolerant people is ill-advised. Not
responding to such outragous drivel means that in some way, shape or
form it's somehow socially acceptable to think of other people as
inferior because they do or don't believe something. But it isn't
acceptable.

Regards,
Johannes

-- 
>> Wo hattest Du das Beben nochmal GENAU vorhergesagt?
> Zumindest nicht öffentlich!
Ah, der neueste und bis heute genialste Streich unsere großen
Kosmologen: Die Geheim-Vorhersage.
 - Karl Kaos über Rüdiger Thomas in dsa <hidbv3$om2$1@speranza.aioe.org>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#75106

On Friday, November 6, 2015 at 9:44:10 AM UTC-5, Johannes Bauer wrote:
> On 06.11.2015 12:20, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> >> Actually, the REAL crackpotness is not believing in Russel's teapot.
> >> Which OBVIOUSLY is there, if you just cared to look at all the signs.
> > 
> > Frankly, if you want to believe in Russell's Teapot, that's your
> > business, not mine.
> 
> It will be because you'll burn in teapot-hell if you don't. I'm trying
> to save you.
> 
> > I
> > would also ask that you move any discussions of RCH's religious views to
> > a newsgroup where discussion of such beliefs is topical.
> [...]
> > I will resist the temptation to comment on the views themselves. 
> 
> Frankly, if someone publicly proposes that code of a third party cannot
> be used because they're not of a specific religion then this consitutes
> hate speech. It's an absurd level of delusion and extremism that goes
> well beyond "oh you don't belive it, that's your business and okay".
> 
> It's not sufficient to ignore such blatant hatred. Even though I'l well
> aware that it's not topical here. This is *exactly* the place where
> tolerance against completely intolerant people is ill-advised.

The intolerance I possess for these things comes from God Himself,
who is putting away in Hell forever all people who operate under
that spirit, and in that manner.  Judgment has already been made,
and the enemy of this world has been condemned.  All who are in
pursuit of that enemy are condemned along with him.  But all that
will be set free by their faith in Jesus Christ are saved, their
sin debt cancelled, and a new spiritual rebirth given to them,
the born again nature, alive in eternity forevermore.

-----
His is the way of life, the way of truth, for He is the way, and
the truth, and the life.  And when I stand up and make this public
profession explicitly for Him, that is what I am doing:  speaking
of Him BECAUSE of who He is.

It is the division which exists in the world, and the one Jesus
came to set men free from:  falseness, and truth.  Sin, and
holiness.  Self-seeking, and God-seeking.

Mine are God-seeking efforts because they are the manner God asks
us to pursue.  I am rejecting self-seeking efforts, or worldly-
seeking efforts, because they have no foundation of substance.
They are whimsical and topsy-turvey, but the foundation of God
cannot be shaken, and never will be shaken.

I am building my offering atop that foundation.  And I will
continue to do so, and profess His name, and state the reason why
I am doing so, until there is no breath left within me.  It is
exactly because of who He is, and what He has done for me.

King of kings.
Lord of lords.

Every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess, that Jesus is
Lord, all to the glory of God the Father.

> Not
> responding to such outragous drivel means that in some way, shape or
> form it's somehow socially acceptable to think of other people as
> inferior because they do or don't believe something. But it isn't
> acceptable.

The problem you perceive resides with Jesus Christ and truth, and
not with me.  You will not receive Jesus Christ, which is to say you
will not receive truth, which is why you find my speech as hate
speech.

But God sends men like me out into the world to teach those we
encounter about such things so they too will know the truth.  It is
that same enemy spirit I talk about here in my posts that you are
also operating under.  It has blinded you to the truth, given you
false ideas to embrace as though they were truth.

I warn you that you are in pursuit of falseness, and that pursuit
will cost you your eternal soul.  I advise you that Jesus Christ
will forgive you of your sin, and save you, and give you the free
gift of eternal life if you will humble yourself, repent of your
sin and receive Him.

The ways of Jesus Christ are of peace, truth, rightness, righteousness,
holiness, love, and community.  They are the fundamental ways of all
manner of longevity in this universe:  everything working together in
harmony.  But here upon this Earth there is discord because of sin,
because of dis-unity brought about by sin.  The enemy is at work here,
and he is leading men to their eternal destruction.

Don't be deceived by that enemy, Johannes.  Seek the truth honestly.
Pursue it all the way to its ends.  When you do, you will find it,
and you will find Jesus Christ, and God the Father will draw you to
Him so that you will recognize your sin, repent of your sin, ask
forgiveness of your sin, and be saved in eternity, given new life,
the born again nature, which will then let you follow after Him for
all the days of your life on this Earth.

I pray you do receive Him, Johannes.  I would like to see you in
Heaven.

Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#75107

On 06/11/15 14:43, Johannes Bauer wrote:
> On 06.11.2015 12:20, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>> Actually, the REAL crackpotness is not believing in Russel's teapot.
>>> Which OBVIOUSLY is there, if you just cared to look at all the signs.
>>
>> Frankly, if you want to believe in Russell's Teapot, that's your
>> business, not mine.
>
> It will be because you'll burn in teapot-hell if you don't. I'm trying
> to save you.

Thanks for that, but if you could attempt to save me in 
alt.teapots.russell (oh, please, please, there *must* be... oh dear, no 
there isn't, at least not at the moment, but someone could presumably 
create it...) rather than in comp.lang.c I'd appreciate it.

>> I
>> would also ask that you move any discussions of RCH's religious views to
>> a newsgroup where discussion of such beliefs is topical.
> [...]
>> I will resist the temptation to comment on the views themselves.
>
> Frankly, if someone publicly proposes that code of a third party cannot
> be used because they're not of a specific religion then this consitutes
> hate speech. It's an absurd level of delusion and extremism that goes
> well beyond "oh you don't belive it, that's your business and okay".

I think it's absurd to call it "hate speech", but you're probably right 
in law (so yes, I think the law is absurd, too). As long as he's not 
actually inciting anyone to acts of violence, I would very much prefer 
it if he were free to say anything he chooses (up to and including 
verbal attacks on minority groups if that's what floats his boat), not 
because I approve of such things (clearly I don't) but because the 
alternative - an increasingly oppressive bound on what we are allowed to 
say - is so monstrous. But let him say it in a newsgroup where it's topical.

> It's not sufficient to ignore such blatant hatred. Even though I'l well
> aware that it's not topical here. This is *exactly* the place where
> tolerance against completely intolerant people is ill-advised. Not
> responding to such outragous drivel means that in some way, shape or
> form it's somehow socially acceptable to think of other people as
> inferior because they do or don't believe something. But it isn't
> acceptable.

You're right that it isn't acceptable, but wrong to say that not 
responding to it is an implicit acceptance. This is the Internet, where 
new instances of outrageous drivel appear by the million, every single 
day. Nobody can possibly object (in the sense of posting an objection) 
to *all* of them because there aren't enough hours in the day. So to 
suggest, with Thomas More, that "silence implies assent" (or at least 
acceptance) doesn't really work.

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#75117

Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> writes:
[...]
> Frankly, if someone publicly proposes that code of a third party cannot
> be used because they're not of a specific religion then this consitutes
> hate speech. It's an absurd level of delusion and extremism that goes
> well beyond "oh you don't belive it, that's your business and okay".

I'm not going to ask you to take this discussion somewhere else.  You're
free to do so, of course, but it doesn't matter to me whether you do or
not.

I'm only going to ask you not to take it here.

> It's not sufficient to ignore such blatant hatred.

Yes, it is.  (I express no opinion on whether "hatred" is an accurate
description.)

>                                                    Even though I'l well
> aware that it's not topical here. This is *exactly* the place where
> tolerance against completely intolerant people is ill-advised. Not
> responding to such outragous drivel means that in some way, shape or
> form it's somehow socially acceptable to think of other people as
> inferior because they do or don't believe something. But it isn't
> acceptable.

No, not responding to it means that it's not socially acceptable
to post off-topic discussions in this newsgroup.

I don't believe Rick is a deliberate troll, but there are plenty
of them out there.  Which means that anyone who posts something
off-topic and sufficiently provocative can successfully cause you
to respond so you can refute whatever offensive thing they've said.
That's part of why this newsgroup's signal-to-noise ratio has been
so poor lately.  Sadly, trolling works.

I believe Rick posts under a valid e-mail address.  If you want
to discuss his beliefs *with him*, you're free to do so.  The rest
of us don't need to read about *your* opinions about *his* beliefs
any more than we need to read about his beliefs in the first place.

Why am I complaining to you and not to Rick?  Because I've tried and
failed to persuade Rick to change is behavior, as have many others,
so there's no further point in complaining to him.  You might still
be persuadable.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#75223

On Friday, November 6, 2015 at 11:20:22 AM UTC, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>
> Frankly, if you want to believe in Russell's Teapot, that's your 
> business, not mine. I'm not going to mock you for it (how could I? You 
> might be right, after all). But I *am* going to ask that you move any 
> discussions thereof to a newsgroup where Russell's Teapot is topical
>
Do you believe in the Utah teapot?

(Not quite a topical teapot, but the most topical teapot I can think of).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#75046

Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> writes:

> On 02.11.2015 17:50, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>
>> It aims
>> to be a largely C-compatible language, but with some of the new features
>> the Lord has given me insight to, and one built atop faith in Jesus Christ.
>
> I first thought this was an - admittedly, pretty funny - fake-post/troll.
>
> Then I checked headers. It appears to be genuine.
>
> I cannot express how shocked I am to find this level of delusion and
> crackpotness in a computer subgroup.

I *really* hope you're being facetious.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#75063

On 06.11.2015 05:33, Joe Pfeiffer wrote:

>> I cannot express how shocked I am to find this level of delusion and
>> crackpotness in a computer subgroup.
> 
> I *really* hope you're being facetious.

Sadly, not really.

I mean there's all sorts of crazy in Usenet. People who claim they can
predict earthquakes, people who have found the definitive scheme to
winning Roulette, etc.

But in the 15+ years I'm active in Usenet I've never met someone who
believes he was empowered by a god to improve the C language as his gift
to humanity. That's a tad bit too much for my taste.

Cheers,
Johannes

-- 
>> Wo hattest Du das Beben nochmal GENAU vorhergesagt?
> Zumindest nicht öffentlich!
Ah, der neueste und bis heute genialste Streich unsere großen
Kosmologen: Die Geheim-Vorhersage.
 - Karl Kaos über Rüdiger Thomas in dsa <hidbv3$om2$1@speranza.aioe.org>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 6  [1] 2 3 4 5 6  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c

csiph-web